Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-27-2012, 07:17 AM   #21
Recycles dryer sheets
ratto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
OMy problem with the very low fat diet is that I get hungry within an hour or two, but my work environment is not condusive to whipping up a good low-fat mid-morning snack. It is more condusive to quickly eating junk food.
Chuckanut, is it possible that your low fat diet contains too much refined carb ingredients? I'm not a chemist or nutritionist, but I found some carbohydrate from the lower end of food chain in conjunction with a small portion of healthy protein and fat would sustain me much longer. For example, a breakfast consisting of some steamed sweet sticky rice, black rice, red beans and very small amount of brown sugar, plus a small cup of whole milk, an boiled egg, and an apple can last me for up to 6 hours. It takes much longer for the nutritious sticky rice to break down in stomach. so it won't cause blood sugar to spike like cereal does.

There was one interesting report from Science Zero of NHK about restricting calories intake to prolong life span. I know, I know, some people would choose to eat free or die hard. There is a gene in everyone's body which is responsible for rejuvenating body cells and help to clean up oxidants released by aging cells. By default it's turned off. It will only be turned on when calories intake is reduced by a certain level. Based on studies of monkeys in lab, both experimental and control groups were given the same feed; but the experimental group's feed was only about 2/3 of the control group's. After some time, the control group member showed normal aging signs just like aging human does, like loose skin, dry & fray hairs, being less energetic, etc. On the contrast, the group with moderately reduced calories still showed shiny hairs, firm skin, and being more active. They also recruited some volunteers at their 30s, 40s and 50s to undergo a couple of months calories intake reduction experiments, and that particular gene in their bodies were turned on at the end of the trial. Now here is the bad news. This particular gene will be automatically turned off again once we return to eat free or die hard mode.
__________________

__________________
ratto is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-27-2012, 07:26 AM   #22
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 514
So in conclusion: Nobody really knows for sure.

The only thing that we know definitely works is to eat less calories than you burn. The source (protein/carbs/fat) is secondary, if it indeed matters at all.
__________________

__________________
kombat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 07:38 AM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DFW_M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by kombat View Post

The only thing that we know definitely works is to eat less calories than you burn.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes out with a book, claiming otherwise
__________________
DFW_M5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 08:27 AM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,643
I am totally new to this stuff. Luckily I don't really need to lose weight and am much more interested in global health. I agree with ERD that both approaches appear to agree with limiting refined carbs and sugar. That works with my preset biases: I can stay with Nords on the bacon journey and potentially add back in some brown rice and other comlpex carbs, and keep with the fruits. I will try some of T-Al's pastry substitutes. The only thing I can't do is eat a lot of vegetables (other than salad greens) so I will stick with vitamin supplements. Easy-peasy. Please don't disabuse me with new facts.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 08:51 AM   #25
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 67
I can't remember whether this forum has ever discussed the book, "The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health".

This book is cited by Bill Clinton when he explians why he switched to a plant based diet. (Eating Advice From the China Study - January 7, 2011 NYTimes.com. Sorry, but the link to the New York TImes article just wouldn't post.)

The book is written by a scientist whose research caused him to radically change his view of the effect of nutrition on human health. After reading it, my skeptical meat-loving scientist husband decided he would change his diet.
__________________
Sue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 08:54 AM   #26
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 265
Science will progress one funeral at a time. Dr. Ornish's heyday was 15 years ago and he is still fighting with a dead man (Atkins). Yes, he showed that the Ornish diet & exercise can reverse heart disease. High fat diets will too.

The problem with Ornish's diet is that people who try it can't sustain it (high carb with calorie restriction). Further more, his assertion that complex carbs don't spike your blood sugar is bogus. Just get a glucose meter two slices of whole-wheat toast and give it a go. For most people, two slices of healthy-whole-wheat bread will spike their blood sugar more than a can of high-fructose corn syrup soda. A typical candy bar is better for controlling blood sugar. So why does he say these things?

Fixing the current dietary mess is definitely going to need a grassroots effort because there is an entire population of government officials, scientists, nutritionists, physicians and pharmaceutical companies that have made a living espousing incorrect advice. They will not go down without a (face-saving) fight.
__________________
rgarling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 09:52 AM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by kombat View Post
So in conclusion: Nobody really knows for sure.
There's a lot to be said for eating food, not too much, mostly plants. Article.
__________________
Age 56, retired July 1, 2012; DW is 60 and working for 2 more years. Current portfolio is 2000K split 50 stocks/20 bonds/30 cash. Renting house, no debts.
BigNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 10:06 AM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigNick View Post
There's a lot to be said for eating food, not too much, mostly plants. Article.
One of the best overview articles I have seen in awhile.......... I could post some interesting stuff my food scientist sister passed along to me, but no doubt it would be pooh-poohed on here........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 11:29 AM   #29
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by bld999 View Post
Strangely, heart disease went up right along with metabolic syndrome, as fat consumption declined. Medicine and science do not see the whole picture yet, and may not for decades. One triumph would be that maybe we could safely return to bacon when the answers are in.
Sorry for my glaring omission of heart disease in the list of the metabolic syndrome pathologies. I started buying bacon again after not having it in the fridge for several years. I love bacon. I am kicking myself for all that bacon I missed out on while wasting my time counting fat grams. I am still new at this HFLC diet and am trying to find good food I like to replace all the carbs I was eating before.
__________________
CW4, USA-(ret)
RN, BSN-(ret)
jclarksnakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 11:40 AM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgarling View Post
Further more, his assertion that complex carbs don't spike your blood sugar is bogus. Just get a glucose meter two slices of whole-wheat toast and give it a go. For most people, two slices of healthy-whole-wheat bread will spike their blood sugar more than a can of high-fructose corn syrup soda. A typical candy bar is better for controlling blood sugar.
To me this is key. Why try to decode the mysteries of the universe when an inexpensive and at least somewhat accurate device can tell you where you personally stand? I suppose it is possible, but IMO not likely, that a diet that spikes one's personal blood sugar might actually be better for his health, but I will put my bet on the "not".

Then we don't need to decide what diet is categorically better, as this may well not be possible, particularly if we need agreement from the experts.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 11:47 AM   #31
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: seattle
Posts: 643
@jclarksnakes

There are probably other chronic conditions that could be added to the list past heart disease, maybe cancers of some type, the ironies are numerous. We crave guidance from research, and behave under various social pressures about food every day.

Deprivation is not usually discussed, but to me becomes a big factor [Nords alluded to this above] Even if there was a certain, immutable diet or behavior set the would save us all from diet related chronic disease, many of us would fail anyway. [ok, maybe I should speak for myself .<G>]
__________________
bld999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 11:56 AM   #32
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by bld999 View Post
@jclarksnakes

Deprivation is not usually discussed, but to me becomes a big factor [Nords alluded to this above] Even if there was a certain, immutable diet or behavior set the would save us all from diet related chronic disease, many of us would fail anyway. [ok, maybe I should speak for myself .<G>]
To me it is huge. I am not a big eater, but I could not avoid food if I were hungry. To me life is not for deliberate deprivation, especially just to get a few more years of deprivation. I would likely be trying to shorten that life as much as I could.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 12:08 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by kombat View Post
So in conclusion: Nobody really knows for sure.

The only thing that we know definitely works is to eat less calories than you burn. The source (protein/carbs/fat) is secondary, if it indeed matters at all.
You say that it's just "calories in/calories out," and you're 100% right. But I'm going to give you an example, that I think will make you realize, that while true, that law is actually irrelevant to weight loss, and that all calories are not equivalent.

Let's say I gave you a pill to eat every morning. This pill contains only four calories. However, this pill affects your hormonal balance, and it makes you ravenously hungry all the time, and also quite lethargic. Perhaps it's related to your thyroid, but that doesn't matter for this example. What matters is that it makes you hungry and sedentary.

As a result, you are going to gain weight. The pill is only a few calories, but you have gained weight because it has made you to eat a lot more food and move around less.

Has your "calories in/calories out" thermodynamic law been violated? No, because, as a result of your extra eating, you have taken in a lot more calories, and expended fewer. But because of the nature of these calories that you've eaten, namely those four calories in the pill that affects your metabolism, you have gained weight. If you were to stop taking that four-calorie pill, you'd lose weight.

In other words, calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.

By the way, in a similar way, eating lots of carbohydrates can force your body to store energy in fat cells, which in turn forces you to eat more and expend less.
__________________
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 12:20 PM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,197
There's a simple solution to this Low-Fat versus Low-Carb question: Try one yourself. Get a physical, and go on one of these diets for a year. Measure your weight and dimensions, and after a year, measure again and get another physical and see how you did. Of all the studies in the world, this is the only one that will tell you whether it will work for you. If not satisfied try the other one.

Even if the diet is dangerous, you probably won't do too much damage in a year.
__________________
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 12:36 PM   #35
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 21,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
I could post some interesting stuff my food scientist sister passed along to me, but no doubt it would be pooh-poohed on here........
Are you saying that it has laxative properties?
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 12:37 PM   #36
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
You say that it's just "calories in/calories out," and you're 100% right. But I'm going to give you an example, that I think will make you realize, that while true, that law is actually irrelevant to weight loss, and that all calories are not equivalent.

....
In other words, calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.
I totally disagree with your conclusion. I think this little story misses the point entirely.

Calories in/calories out is helpful in understanding weight gain or loss. And in this case, you should try to understand why some foods leave you hungry, and drive you to take in more calories. In your example, let's say that pill was 1000 calories instead, and still made you hungry. At the end of the day, it is the total calories you took in that seems to be most important. So how can "calories in/calories out" be irrelevant?

I've looked into the 'satiety index' stuff a bit, and I think that may be very important to all this. FWIW, baked potatoes score very well on that index. The last time I looked, I think the studies were based on hunger after two hours, and I'd like to see something further out as well. The following is anecdotal, few data points, and subjective not scientific, but... it sure seems to me that a breakfast of an egg, some bacon or sausage, and some carbs (pan-fried potatoes or whole grain bread) keeps me satisfied well past my normal lunch time, while the same breakfast w/o the carbs has me hungry before lunch.

My fasting glucose is always in the mid 90s, I recently had a chance to get it tested at the local pharmacy, so I went in ~ 1 hour after my typical breakfast/lunch (oatmeal with nuts&fruit, sandwich) and my glucose was still mid 90's.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 12:56 PM   #37
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 21,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
The following is anecdotal, few data points, and subjective not scientific, but... it sure seems to me that a breakfast of an egg, some bacon or sausage, and some carbs (pan-fried potatoes or whole grain bread) keeps me satisfied well past my normal lunch time, while the same breakfast w/o the carbs has me hungry before lunch.
Over the past few months we have taken to at least once a week going somewhere and having a big cooked breakfast and then not eating until late afternoon and then only eating very light. On Saturday we rode 13 miles to a Denny's and had 2 scrambled eggs, sausage and bacon plus 2 pancakes. Ate only oatmeal in the evening, and was not hungry at all until then.

Today we had a visitor staying so we drove out to Cafe Express and I had a SW breakfast - scrambled eggs, beans, guacamole, and again don't expect to feel a need to eat until late afternoon.

FWIW, we tend to eat little red meat and avoid refined sugars, but are not obsessed with that regime. (Last night DW cooked us a lamb curry over basmati rice.)

Thanks to OP for the link, I did enjoy watching it.
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 12:59 PM   #38
Recycles dryer sheets
REattempt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
There's a simple solution to this Low-Fat versus Low-Carb question: Try one yourself. Get a physical, and go on one of these diets for a year. Measure your weight and dimensions, and after a year, measure again and get another physical and see how you did. Of all the studies in the world, this is the only one that will tell you whether it will work for you. If not satisfied try the other one.

Even if the diet is dangerous, you probably won't do too much damage in a year.
I think there are two fallacies with this approach and thinking.

I think this is the equivalent of taking half your money and putting it into Clyatt's RIP AA portfolio and half your money into a Permanent Portfolio AA and at the end of a year seeing which one made more money...then putting all your money into the AA that made more money. I think more people here would want longer results to validate the AA. This is one of the reason I started this thread. I felt that people were putting the LCHF diet up as the "end all" based only on weight loss. I think the ramification of heart health and cancer to be more important than the weight loss.

Second, is the heart health and cancer. All the studies I've seen that are randomized and controlled demonstrate the HCLF approach has an impact on both. You may have perfectly reasonable bloodwork, but still have an impact on your coronary function. See these studies: http://engine2diet.com/~engine2/usrfiles/files/publishedstudies/obesity/comparative-effects-of-3-diets.pdf and The Effect of High-Protein Diets on Coronary Blood Flow

One of these was a 6 month study and one was a 1 year study. Both demonstrated that you can do damage in a year.
__________________
FIREd at 46, 8/31/11
REattempt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 01:02 PM   #39
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,197
Quote:
I totally disagree with your conclusion. I think this little story misses the point entirely.

Calories in/calories out is helpful in understanding weight gain or loss. And in this case, you should try to understand why some foods leave you hungry, and drive you to take in more calories. In your example, let's say that pill was 1000 calories instead, and still made you hungry. At the end of the day, it is the total calories you took in that seems to be most important. So how can "calories in/calories out" be irrelevant?

I think you are actually agreeing with me, but perhaps I didn't express it well.

We are both saying that what you eat will affect how many calories you end up eating during the day. In other words, we are both saying that people who claim "The only thing that matters is calories in/calories out" are wrong.

Perhaps "irrelevant" is too strong, but the calories in/calories out concept isn't helpful unless you live in a cage, and have no control over how much you eat. It isn't a helpful concept if what you eat can force you want to eat more or exercise less.
__________________
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 01:04 PM   #40
Recycles dryer sheets
REattempt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgarling View Post
Yes, he showed that the Ornish diet & exercise can reverse heart disease. High fat diets will too.
Do you have a source for a randomized controlled study from any peer reviewed source that demonstrates that HF will reverse heart disease? I haven't found one and this is the whole reason I started this thread...can you point me at the results? I provided the randomized controlled study for the Ornish diet...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgarling View Post
The problem with Ornish's diet is that people who try it can't sustain it (high carb with calorie restriction). Further more, his assertion that complex carbs don't spike your blood sugar is bogus. For most people, two slices of healthy-whole-wheat bread will spike their blood sugar more than a can of high-fructose corn syrup soda. A typical candy bar is better for controlling blood sugar. ... So why does he say these things?
While I'm no expert, I think you have to look beyond the glycemic index to the glycemic load. For example, most candy has a relatively high Glycemic Index, eating a single piece of candy will result in a relatively small glycemic response because your body's glycemic response is dependent on both the type AND the amount of carbohydrate consumed. This concept, known as Glycemic Load, was first identified in 1997 by Dr. Walter Willett and associates at the Harvard School of Public Health. Glycemic Load is calculated this way:
GL = GI/100 x Net Carbs
(Net Carbs are equal to the Total Carbohydrates minus Dietary Fiber)

GL's less than 10 are considered low and GL's above 20 are considered high.

While Wheat bread's GI is about 74, Wheat bread's GL is 10 (considered low) because of the dietary fiber content. [ from the original study: International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002 ]. A snickers bar has a GI of about 55, but because of the net carbs being so high due to lack of dietary fiber (64) the GL is 35, which is considered very high Glycemic Index &ndash; NutritionData.com.

Again, I'm no expert, I'm trying to figure this out for myself. Do you have any type of data to support that candy bars "control" blood sugar better than whole wheat bread? [I'm assuming that you mean I have a smaller spike in blood sugar with a candy bar than whole wheat bread]
__________________

__________________
FIREd at 46, 8/31/11
REattempt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low carb diets gain respect rgarling Health and Early Retirement 209 05-31-2013 12:52 AM
Super low 5 year Mortgage rate at Penfed - 1.99% FUEGO FIRE and Money 15 04-06-2012 09:48 AM
For the Techies: Anyone know what 35c.png is? sheehs1 Other topics 15 03-27-2012 03:23 PM
Do you see your neighborhood differently now that you're there all the time? Tree-dweller Life after FIRE 57 03-26-2012 05:42 PM
The Anxiety of Success ShortInSeattle Young Dreamers 51 03-26-2012 01:25 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:49 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.